K.C.G. VERGHESEversusK.T. RAJENDRAN AND ANR.

A                              K.C.G. VERGHESE
                                       v.
                          K.T. RAJENDRAN AND ANR.

                                JANUARY 24, 2003

B            [S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND
                           G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]


          Rent and Eviction :

c        Eviction of tenant-Part of tenanted premises in possession of tenant's
   brother-Ejectment oftenant's brother-Tenant's appeal dismissed by Supreme
   Court-Tenant filing an undertaking to hand over the premises to landlord
   on or before specified date-Later tenant intimating landlord to have vacated
   the portion of suit premises in his possession except the portion in possession
D ofhis brother-Landlordfiling contempt petition before Supreme Court against
   tenant and his brother-Tenant's brother contending that he not being a party
   in the case, Wai not liable to contempt-Held, contempt proceedings against
   tenant's brother discharged-However, tenant while filing undertaking before
   the Court did not indicate that his brother occupied portion of suit premises
   nor was such a stand taken at any stage of the proceedings-Thus order of
E eviction passed against the tenant is equally binding upon his brother-Besides,
   in the power of attorney executed in respect of the tenanted premises, there
   being no mention of independent right of tenant's brother to the premises, his
 · objection to vacating the premises is overruled-Principal Judge, City Civil
   and Session Court would take steps to eject tenant's brother, if necessary,
F with police help, from the premises-Contempt of Court.
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition Nos 280-
    281/2000.

                                         IN
G         Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5393-94/1999.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.1999 of the High Court of
    Madras in CRP 1001 and 1002/95.

          Mahabir Singh, Ajay Pal, T.V. George and Rakesh Dahiya for the
H                                        552
           K.C.G. VERGHESE v. K.T. RAJENDRAN [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.)553

       Petitioner.                                                                     A
             A.T.M. Sampath and Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondents.

             The Order of the Court was delivered by

             RAJENDRA BABU, J. On an order of eviction passed against him B
       in RCOP NO. 3598/86 by the Rent Controller the contemnor No. I-KT.
-->-   Rajendran-filed C.R.P. Nos 1001-1002 of 1995 on the file the High Court of
       Madras and on dismissal thereof, Special Leave Petition Nos. 5393-94 of
       1999 were filed before this Court. On 31.1.2000 this Court made an order
       dismissing the said petition, however, subject to the usual undertaking filed
       within two weeks from that date and contemnor No. I was granted six months C
       time to vacate the suit premises, that is, No.7, IV Main Road, Gandhi. Nagar,
       Adyar-1500 020. He filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit on
       7.2.2000 stating that 'he will not induct any other person in the suit premises
       and shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to ·
       the Landlords/respondents on or before 31st July, 2000 '. Thereafter, on D
       29.6.2000 he intimated the complainant that he had vacated the portion in his
       occupation in premises No.7, IV Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar-1500 020
       and the rest of the portion is in possession of his brother K.T. Baskaran's
       pursuant to an agreement of sale with him. By his letter dated 1.7.2000 he
       also intimated that he is negotiating with K.T. Baskaran for delivery of
       possession but he is insisting on performance of the agreements of sale with E
       him and that will try to persuade him through mutual friends.

              On these facts, the complainant brought this complaint stating that
       contemnor No. I has not complied with the orders passed by this Court and
       contemnor No.2 is helping the first contemnor in not handing over the suit
       premises to him. The stand taken before us by contemnor No. I is the same F
       as stated earlier that portion of the premises in his possession has been vacated
       by him and the other portion has not been vacated since it is not in his
       possession but is in possession of his brother K.T. Baskaran. The said K.T.
       Baskaran, contemnor No.2 took the stand that he is not a party to the
       proceedings taken by the complainant against K.T. Rajendran either in the G
       special leave petition filed before this Court or in any of the earlier proceedings
       and, therefore, question of his disobeying the orders passed by this Court
       could not arise at all; that the building comprised of ground floor, first floor
       and second floor and he is occupying the ground floor since 1989 by way of
       independent right under oral agreement between the complainant and the
       deponent by which an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 had been paid in cash to sell; H
    554                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     {2003) I S.C.R.

A that these fact had been concealed and the complainant has filed a Rent
    Control Original Petition against K.T. Baskaran but he did not pursue with
    since he wanted to take advantage of this contempt petition filed before this
    Court; that in view of his independent right the question of his vacating the
    premises would not arise and the complainant will have to independently
    work out his rights against him. In view of the fact that the second contemrior
B   K.T. Baskaran was not a party to the proceedings, we discharged the
    proceedings against him in these contempt petitions.

          The stand of contemnor No. I is plainly untenable. When the undertaking
    was given by him to the Court, he did not indicate that he was in possession
C   of a part of the premises and not the other portion of the· premises nor was
    such a stand taken in any of the pleadings raised before the High Court or
    the Rent Controller. In these circumstances, we have to hold that the order
    of eviction passed against the first contemnor is equally binding upon the
    second contemnor K.T. Baskaran indeed, a Power of Attorney has been
    executed by contemn or No. I, K. T. Rajendran in favour of K. T. Baskaran to
D   the effect to attend to all the matters relating to the tenancy of house, ground
    and premises No.7. IV Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar-600 020, which is
    the tenanted premises in the present case in that document there is no mention
    of his independent right to be premises as claimed now. In these circumstances,
    we overrule the objections raised by the said K.T. Baskaran for vacating the
E   premises in question.

          We, therefore, direct that the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions
    Court shall take steps to give effect to our, if necessary, with the help of
    police of ejecting the said K.T. Baskaran from the said premises and the
  . possession is delivered to the complainant in these proceedings by removing
F all obstructions thereto and make a rt.port after compliance of this order.          ,A---

    R.P.                                              Tenants' appeal dismissed.